Improvement in conduction velocity after optic neuritis measured with the multifocal VEP

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 692-698

  Yang, E Bo ^a   Hood, Donald C ^a   Rodarte, Chris ^a   Zhang, Xian ^a   Odel, Jeffrey G ^b   Behrens, Myles M ^b  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^b Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVALESCENCE; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LATENT PERIOD; MALE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NERVE CONDUCTION; OPTIC NEURITIS; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOSEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ADULT; AGED; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LATENCY PERIOD (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NEURAL CONDUCTION; OPTIC NEURITIS; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 33847734706     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0475     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Swanson JW. Multiple sclerosis: update in diagnosis and review of prognostic factors. Mayo Clin Proc. 1989;64:577-586.
2. Compston A. Mechanisms of axon-glial injury of the optic nerve. Eye. 2004;18:1182-1187.
3. Hickman SJ, Toosy AT, Miszkiel KA, et al. Visual recovery following acute optic neuritis - a clinical, electrophysiological and magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurol. 2004;251:996-1005.
4. Adams CWM. A Colour Atlas of Mulitiple Sclerosis and Other Myeline Disorders. London: Wolfe Medical Publications; 1989.
5. Rodriguez M, Scheithauer B. Ultrastructure of multiple sclerosis. Ultrastruc Pathol. 1994;18:3-13.
6. Rodriguez M, Scheithauer BW, Forbes G, Kelly PJ. Oligodendrocyte injury is an early event in lesions of multiple sclerosis. Mayo Clic Proc. 1993;68:627-636.
7. Prineas JW, Barnard RO, Kwon EE, Sharer LR, Cho ES. Multiple sclerosis: remyelination of nascent lesions. Ann Neurol. 1993;33: 137-151.
8. Halliday AM, McDonald EI, Mushin J. Delayed visual evoked response in optic neuritis. Lancet. 1972;1:982-985.
9. Halliday AM, McDonald EI, Mushin J. Visual evoked response in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. BMJ. 1973;1:661-664.
10. Frederiksen JL, Petrera J. Serial visual evoked potentials in 90 untreated patients with acute optic neuritis. Surv Ophthalmol. 1999;44(suppl 1):S54-S62.
11. Holder GE. Multiple sclerosis. In: Heckenlively JR, Arden GB, eds. Principles and Practice of Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book; 1991:797-805.
12. Matthews WB, Small DG. Serial recording of visual and somatosensory evoked potentials in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 1979; 40:11-21.
13. Brusa A, Jones SJ, Kapoor R, Miller DH, Plant GT. Long-term recovery and fellow eye deterioration after optic neuritis, determined by serial visual evoked potentials. J Neurol. 1999;246:776-782.
14. Brusa A, Jones SJ, Plant GT. Long-term remyelination after optic neuritis: a 2-year visual evoked potential and psychophysical serial study. Brain. 2001;124:468-479.
15. Hidajat RR, Goode DH. Normalisation of visual evoked potentials after optic neuritis. Doc Ophthalmol. 2003;106:305-309.
16. Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA, Carney T. The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol. 1994;90:65-81.
17. Klistorner AI, Graham SL, Grigg JR, Billson FA. Multifocal topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visual field defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39:937-950.
18. Hood DC, Greenstein VC. Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2003;22:201-251.
19. Fortune B, Hood DC. Conventional pattern-reversal VEPs are not equivalent to summed multifocal VEPs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:1364-1375.
20. Hood DC, Odel JG, Zhang X. Tracking the recovery of local optic nerve function after optic neuritis: a multifocal VEP study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:4032-4038.
21. Fortune B, Goh K, Demirel S, et al. Detection of glaucomatous visual field loss using the multifocal visual evoked potential. In: Henson DB, Wall M, eds. Perimetry Update 2002/2003: Proceedings of the XVth International Perimetric Society Meeting. The Hague: Kugler; 2003:251-260.
22. Hood DC. Electrophysiologic imaging of retinal and optic nerve damage: the multifocal technique. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2004;17:69-88.
23. Hood DC. The multifocal electroretinographic and visual evoked potential techniques. In: Heckenlively JR, Arden GB, eds. Principles and Practice of Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006:197-205.
24. Sutter EE. The fast m-transform: a fast computation of cross-correlations with binary m-sequences. Soc Ind Appl Math. 1991;20: 684-694.
25. Betsuin Y, Mashima Y, Ohde H, Inoue R, Oguchi Y. Clinical application of the multifocal VEPs. Curr Eye Res. 2001;22:54-63.
26. Kardon RH, Givre SJ, Wall M, Hood DC. Comparison of threshold and multifocal-VEP perimetry in recovered optic neuritis. In: Wall M, Mills RP, eds. Perimetry Update 2000/2001: Proceedings of the XIIIth International Perimetric Society Meeting, September 6-9, 2000. New York: Kugler Publications; 2001:19-28.
27. Ruseckaite R, Maddess T, Danta G, Lueck CJ, James AC. Sparse multifocal stimuli for the detection of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2005;57:904-913.
28. Fortune B, Demirel S, Zhang X, Hood DC, Johnson CA. Repeatability of the normal multifocal VEP: implications for detecting progression. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:131-141.
29. Hood DC, Zhang X, Hong JE, Chen CS. Quantifying the benefits of additional channels of multifocal VEP recording. Doc Ophthalmol. 2002;104:303-320.
30. Hood DC, Ohri N, Yang EB, et al. Determining abnormal latencies of the multifocal visual evoked potentials: a monocular analysis. Doc Ophthalmol. 2004;109:189-199.
31. Fortune B, Zhang X, Hood DC, Demirel S, Johnson CA. Normative ranges and specificity of the multifocal VEP. Doc Ophthalmol. 2004;109:87-100.